Morals and ethics

In another thread where I no longer have posting privileges, the question of morals, and ethics came up concerning religion. One poster suggested that morals, and ethics were not something religion was responsible for, and at first glance, one might think that would be true. After all, I'm not religious, and I consider myself to be a moral, and ethical person, however, if one thinks about this deeper one cannot dismiss that morals, and ethics would have evolved right along with our physiological evolution, like many other contemporary belief systems. So, I have to question the claim that morals along with ethics was not, and is not a manifestation of our religious growth.

I know that, although I am not religious, I can't think of one aspect of my personality that was not directly inherited from my Father, and Mother, which in-turn was inherited from their Mother and Father, all the way down to the beginning of organized religion. One could make the argument that it wasn't until religious precepts that morality, and ethics was codified into a common way of believing, and whether forced upon you, or whether you ascribed to the belief systems, religion was responsible for putting down on paper what it was that society expected of its members.

Yes, I am aware of various religious campaigns and persecution throughout history, but it doesn't displace the impact religion had, and continues to have on all of society, and societies that embrace their basic fundamental moral, and ethical teachings. We all have our own ideas of what is moral, and ethical, and those ideas stem across a wide range of religions, and cultures, but the mainstay principles or fairness, and conduct are familiar, and consistent for the same kind of reason in any society.

So, if not religion, then what was responsible for our belief systems? What was the first moral act, or ethical decision we experienced from an evolutionary point of view, and how would that manifest into religion? Or is religion the manifestation of our evolutionary growth? Was it inevitable? Isn't religion really a culmination of a certain set of moral and ethical beliefs shared by a significant number of members in any given society? Is it fair to say that religion could not happen -or- can only happen if society embraces a specific set of morals, and ethics? Can't we define religion in this manner, and would it be unfair to resolve to this conclusion?

It's like saying that morals and ethics do not require religion to know whether something is right or wrong, but once we make that determination we have embraced a religious position, and if not, then what is your basis for forming your own, none religious convictions?

Please explain?


Tim-

I think there are morals and ethics that come from religion that are noble but also practical and simply common sense.

Morals and ethics came before religion in the sense that we know it. Somehow man figured out that if he wanted to live in a society, a village of other human beings, that running around killing people was not the way to go about it.

Thus man crafted that morality and sense of ethics into religion and law which up until recently (in the grand scheme of things) were not all that seperate and in many places still are not seperate.

But then there are other things that go beyond morals and ethics, the banning of homosexuality, the banning of divorce, the idea of no sex before marriage.

All of these ideas have been around for awhile, some cultures still hang onto them, but as society changes and shifts these rules no longer become practical or nessecary, does eating pig REALLY make one unclean? Or was that just a perception, does eating shell fish really make one a deviant? Is getting circumsized really nessecary or were the last two simply examples of religion teaching public health messages of their day, after all "Why the skins off the end of our penises priest?" "You do not want sand in their my son" rof

All in all, there are good things religion teaches, bad things and simply unnessecary things.

People also have instincts, a brain and the need to survive, using these three things we somehow figured out how to live in societies that weren't always just, but somehow worked due to a natural inclination to relatively ethical behaviour to eachother.

Jetboogieman said:

I think there are morals and ethics that come from religion that are noble but also practical and simply common sense.

Morals and ethics came before religion in the sense that we know it. Somehow man figured out that if he wanted to live in a society, a village of other human beings, that running around killing people was not the way to go about it.

Thus man crafted that morality and sense of ethics into religion and law which up until recently (in the grand scheme of things) were not all that seperate and in many places still are not seperate.

But then there are other things that go beyond morals and ethics, the banning of homosexuality, the banning of divorce, the idea of no sex before marriage.

All of these ideas have been around for awhile, some cultures still hang onto them, but as society changes and shifts these rules no longer become practical or nessecary, does eating pig REALLY make one unclean? Or was that just a perception, does eating shell fish really make one a deviant? Is getting circumsized really nessecary or were the last two simply examples of religion teaching public health messages of their day, after all "Why the skins off the end of our penises priest?" "You do not want sand in their my son" rof

All in all, there are good things religion teaches, bad things and simply unnessecary things.

People also have instincts, a brain and the need to survive, using these three things we somehow figured out how to live in societies that weren't always just, but somehow worked due to a natural inclination to relatively ethical behaviour to eachother.

Click to expand...

Ok, so what are the basic fundamental morals and ethics? Do we have a fundamental ethic or moral fabric to us? Little babies, and toddlers need to learn how to share, or not hit, or bite.. If morality was innate, babies and children wouldn't necessarily need to be taught these things. It would be like our instinct for self preservation, or breathing, or whatever other basic instinct we have. So, assuming that this is true, or maybe true, we can move on to the question of where (If morality is innate) would morality, and ethics as a fundamental human characteristic fit in, and how would you go about proving it?


Tim-

All cultures have some manner of spiritual belief. All cultures have their own forms of morality and ethics. So I suppose you might say that in some ways religion and morality always co-exist. Not all of either came before the other. In other words, morality, ethics and religions evolve each likely influencing the evolution of the other.

Risky Thicket said:

All cultures have some manner of spiritual belief. All cultures have their own forms of morality and ethics. So I suppose you might say that in some ways religion and morality always co-exist. Not all of either came before the other. In other words, morality, ethics and religions evolve each likely influencing the evolution of the other.

Click to expand...

Exactly, but isn't that also fair to say that religion is responsible for morality, and ethics, like ethics and morality was respoinsible for religion?

isn't it the same thing?


Tim-

It's pretty simple. Look at any other social species on earth.

All of them have some sort of cooperative drive. Most of them protect their family and group members. Most of them can be self-sacrificing for the greater good of the group. Most of them shun and punish aberrant behavior. At the very least, it's simple stuff like hunting together. At the most, it's true, higher ethics - things like condemning rape. And I'm not just talking about humans. There are other primates that do, as well.

It's a very simple principal that should sound familiar to anyone of any or no religion: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We even have dedicated brain structures that help us figure out how others in our group feel so we can better judge how to "do unto others." Mirror neurons, inborn emotional traits, and even a spot above your right ear that contemplates motive, intent, and justice. All of these things are there to help as function as a group, because as social animals, we need to.

As individuals, we need social contact to be healthy, happy, and productive. As a species, we need cooperation to survive. A human on their own very quickly sinks down the food chain when pitted against the plethora of animals that are faster, stronger, and have better senses than we do.

I don't think the inception of religion actually had anything to do with morality. The origin of religions actually point to it being a crude substitute for science, in the sense that it was designed to explain how the world works (though not in the sense that it relied on any sort of factual evidence). The earliest religions were trying to explain things like how we interact with our environment, and how we can understand the environment in such a way as to make it work for us. Didn't have much to do with morality at all.

The absorption of morality under the fold of religion came from a completely different direction. If you are the story-teller, telling the tales of the religion your tribe believes - believes to be the law of the natural world, which they are at the mercy of - you hold a lot of power. You're probably in some kind of leadership position, and as a leader you're interested in seeing your tribe work cohesively. Why not tell them that if they behave themselves the god of rain will end the drought?

And from there, the rules get more and more complex. Some of them have to do with genuine social morality, and some of them are for the benefit of people who like power. But I don't see reason to believe that religion itself was originally intended as a moral compass, nor any reason to believe our morality is contingent upon having a religion.

MistressNomad said:

It's pretty simple. Look at any other social species on earth.

All of them have some sort of cooperative drive. Most of them protect their family and group members. Most of them can be self-sacrificing for the greater good of the group. Most of them shun and punish aberrant behavior. At the very least, it's simple stuff like hunting together. At the most, it's true, higher ethics - things like condemning rape. And I'm not just talking about humans. There are other primates that do, as well.

It's a very simple principal that should sound familiar to anyone of any or no religion: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We even have dedicated brain structures that help us figure out how others in our group feel so we can better judge how to "do unto others." Mirror neurons, inborn emotional traits, and even a spot above your right ear that contemplates motive, intent, and justice. All of these things are there to help as function as a group, because as social animals, we need to.

As individuals, we need social contact to be healthy, happy, and productive. As a species, we need cooperation to survive. A human on their own very quickly sinks down the food chain when pitted against the plethora of animals that are faster, stronger, and have better senses than we do.

I don't think the inception of religion actually had anything to do with morality. The origin of religions actually point to it being a crude substitute for science, in the sense that it was designed to explain how the world works (though not in the sense that it relied on any sort of factual evidence). The earliest religions were trying to explain things like how we interact with our environment, and how we can understand the environment in such a way as to make it work for us. Didn't have much to do with morality at all.

The absorption of morality under the fold of religion came from a completely different direction. If you are the story-teller, telling the tales of the religion your tribe believes - believes to be the law of the natural world, which they are at the mercy of - you hold a lot of power. You're probably in some kind of leadership position, and as a leader you're interested in seeing your tribe work cohesively. Why not tell them that if they behave themselves the god of rain will end the drought?

And from there, the rules get more and more complex. Some of them have to do with genuine social morality, and some of them are for the benefit of people who like power. But I don't see reason to believe that religion itself was originally intended as a moral compass, nor any reason to believe our morality is contingent upon having a religion.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say here.

I would also like to add that "morality and ethics" are extremely relative. The reason I've never taken to any particular religion, even though some are quite interesting, is because I find they all have an immoral and unethical dark side that I want no part of. So I've fashioned myself my own brand of spirituality, without god, teacher or preacher to poison it with their own take on morality and ethics.

As others have said, the relationship between morals and religion is one of correlation, not causation, they're both things that allow us to function better as social animals, and you can intertwine them to simplify things, but they're not dependent upon one-another to exist.